Machiavelli : Europe Arising

[Wyvern]

Originally posted by Mulliman
Great AAR Wyvern, though i will have to correct some things in my AAR (namely the ones of Sweden being on France´s side).

Did I say you were on Frances side? I thought it was more along the lines of Scandinavia persuaded by the lies of the enemy (I was thinking Poland here and their refusing a 50d peace settlement and you not believing we offered it - another despicable act by the treacherous Poles, see how she stooped to trick even those who offered her friendship - how many Swedish dead resulted from Polands base treachery I wonder? Do they not cry out for vengence?) Anway so Sweden then proceeded to pillage Prussia and terrorise the free peoples of Europe, tricked into fighting for the armies of darkness as I say in the AAR , until you saw what france really had in store for Prussia. You may not have been directly on France's side but everything you did sure as hell helped her .

 

[unmerged(10915)]

Originally posted by Wyvern
Did I say you were on Frances side? I thought it was more along the lines of Scandinavia persuaded by the lies of the enemy (I was thinking Poland here and their refusing a 50d peace settlement and you not believing we offered it - another despicable act by the treacherous Poles, see how she stooped to trick even those who offered her friendship - how many Swedish dead resulted from Polands base treachery I wonder? Do they not cry out for vengence?) Anway so Sweden then proceeded to pillage Prussia and terrorise the free peoples of Europe, tricked into fighting for the armies of darkness as I say in the AAR , until you saw what france really had in store for Prussia. You may not have been directly on France's side but everything you did sure as hell helped her .

Yeah, though i never talked to France during the whole period, you could say that Scandinavia wanted to push things in the more pleasant direction . But more of that in the AAR.

Actually i must say again Wyv, your AAR was really damn great!

 

[Wyvern]

Originally posted by Mulliman
Actually i must say again Wyv, your AAR was really damn great!

Thank you! - *takes a modest bow*

 

[Slargos]

To be fair, Poland never called Sweden into the conflict. She joined of own volition.

 

[Slargos]

Regarding Machiavelli: The next generation.

What is the opinion on using randomly generated leaders instead of the current ones?

It would level teh playingfield a bit leaderwise, and would add some excitement.

 

[BiB]

Originally posted by Barnius
Yeah, right! Spain buying peace from everyone is really RPGish. As asked already, could you provide us with the numbers on how many to whom when for what and with which RPG reason Spain helped financially? Again, this is "Discussuin" forum, so Spain should not adjust her relations with Holland based on that we say here. AAR forum is for that .

In my opinion it really is THE SMARTEST for England to stay in her current alliance. But it RPGish it would make MUCH more sense and it would be MUCH more fun if England would for example team up with someone and go for Caribbean.

Yes, adding a bunch of catholic iberian colonies (if they pull it off, that is) really is worth pissing off the nation that actually brought u to where u are today after centuries in the wilderness. Once again u are showing ur true colours, Barnius, friendship, gratitude and the like do not feature in ur vocabulary

 

[BiB]

Originally posted by Barnius
Wasn't it when it was (for the second time) renewed? If I remember correctly it is perhaps the most stable alliance in the game (meaning lasted for the longest time).

It was formed first time when Spain bought Englad out of France/Holland/England alliance A SECOND before Spanish War (~1650) and it lasted till England allied with Holland after 40 years or so (and Spain organised this alliance change!). Than Orange was no more King of England and England returned to American Alliance. And the occasion you mentioned was probably the third renewal of it.
Don't hold me for every word, because I was not there, but it is more complete information than your short one.

I was allied to France in 1700 and noone else, not even Portugal.

 

[BiB]

Originally posted by kurtbrian
I really don't think quoting yourself is a smart thing to do.

BiB usually quotes other people...

This to spamming in my opinion.

(yeah, yeah, looks who's talkigna nd all that....)

And I can delete posts and edit post counts even

 

[unmerged(10915)]

Originally posted by BiB
And I can delete posts and edit post counts even

Somehow, you always stay at 22k posts!

 

[ForzaA]

Originally posted by Mulliman
Dont even understand why Denmark backstabbed me, i got the province back afterwards and my trust for Denmark decreased alot. Didnt make me much weaker either.[snip](when i had allied Denmark, dont ask

ok ok.. basically.. doing only some economy as denmark for 2 evenings is quite boring.. and i had thought the war would have gone better (damn prussian propaganda )

after that.. noone was really willing to sign an alliance, not even the ones i basically saved from the Swedish "strike anywhere,anytime" with my navy...

so i returned to the Swedish alliance

 

[Swuul]

Originally posted by Slargos
Regarding Machiavelli: The next generation.

What is the opinion on using randomly generated leaders instead of the current ones?

Well, I would like it

 

[ForzaA]

Originally posted by Jarkko Suvinen
Well, I would like it

i second the motion (no more Freddy, G2A or Karl XII to rampage the Danish countryside )

 

[Wyvern]

Originally posted by ForzaA
i second the motion (no more Freddy, G2A or Karl XII to rampage the Danish countryside )

I would support it too. Either all random leaders based on size and wealth of nation, regenerated in between each session, or random leaders generated in addition to regular ones.

 

[Slargos]

I'm working on the random leader generator but it's not looking all that great ATM. My meager skills may be insufficient for the task. Now, if Peter were to offer his help, maybe we could get something going.

My favourite would be total randomization to make the game more interesting. Napoleon doesn't *have* to be a God of War...
Ie, keep names, randomize stats, add some leaders for the countries that don't have so many..

 

[ForzaA]

just to confuse it a bit

maybe not only random leaders in-between sessions but also an option to pre-generate for the entire GC


taking the current leader-files and randomising stats imho isn't a very good idea since it would be quite a job to count leaders for each country, add some to some countries, take some away from others.. seems like it would be a better idea to just randomise it all and -perhaps- add the historical leadernames as "one time chance"(ie.. you MIGHT get a napoleon, but not two) to the name generating

 

[unmerged(10146)]

Originally posted by Wyvern
I would support it too. Either all random leaders based on size and wealth of nation, regenerated in between each session, or random leaders generated in addition to regular ones.

Great idea!

 

[unmerged(10146)]

FOR EDITING:

Holland owns one colony in Australia. It is to be transfered to England.

Barnius, Raadspensionaris of Holland

 

[Damocles]

Originally posted by Slargos
Regarding Machiavelli: The next generation.

What is the opinion on using randomly generated leaders instead of the current ones?

It would level teh playingfield a bit leaderwise, and would add some excitement.

I am very much in favor of random leaders.
There is a certain little beta forum where I tried in vain to have this accepted, but I guess somewhere out there, some starry eyed kiddie has his wee heart set on using Robert E. Lee to annex the Union.

 

[RedPhoenix]

Originally posted by Damocles
I am very much in favor of random leaders.
There is a certain little beta forum where I tried in vain to have this accepted, but I guess somewhere out there, some starry eyed kiddie has his wee heart set on using Robert E. Lee to annex the Union.

It would be great if it was a combination of both, and also both separate, so you could choose what to use.

Also I think the leaders should not be based on country size or wealth really, but on percentage of army or navy in comparision to countrys resources, so if its a very naval nation it should get more naval leaders, etc.

 

[BiB]

OK then, Barney.